Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful. I did not see anyone else indicate that they wanted to comment. Would Suzanne Munday like to respond briefly?

Thanks for that. Before I hand back to the convener, I put on record my thanks for all the work that the witnesses have done over the past few years in tackling head on the unacceptable discrimination that Gypsy Travellers face. I have come across you all in various guises over the past couple of years, in the predecessor committee to this one and at various cross-party groups.

I hope that the convener does not mind me telling this wee story, but I was at an event on Sunday at the Glasgow Pavilion—it was a children’s show and I took my two boys to it. Something happened that I think indicates how much work you have done that perhaps sometimes goes unnoticed.

The play was about dinosaurs and stuff like that; it was really good. It was a lively show and the audience were interacting and laughing. That is the context.

There was one comment that showed unconscious bias. One of the actresses used the word “tinker”. She meant nothing by it and she was referring to a child, so it was not a reference to Gypsy Travellers. However, there was a kind of gasp from the audience—so much so that my kids asked me what a tinker was, and I could hear another kid away over on the other side of the hall asking the same question. It was quite a lively show and that was the audience response to that comment. Five years ago, perhaps, that might have got a laugh or something like that. I thought about this evidence session and I reflected that that change is partly down to all the work that the witnesses that are in front of us have put in.

I hope that you do not mind me sharing that story. It dawned on me earlier, when people were talking, that perhaps I was meant to be there on Sunday, with this evidence session coming up just two days later. I feel that I almost have a responsibility to share that story and praise the good work that you have done. You will not see the societal changes because you are living the fight every single day. That was one small, personal and anecdotal example, but I feel that it was definitely worth sharing. Thanks, convener, for allowing me to do so.

I am happy to start with Davie Donaldson. I will put him on the spot.

I know that my colleagues who visited Blackburn heard some support for having local flexibility in the bill that could encompass some of the issues that we have been talking about in the committee, such as local gala days or sporting events that might be important to people in a certain area. Would you support that flexibility? What are your thoughts on that? I will start with Julie Whitelaw.

I see from the chat box that David MacKenzie wants to come in as well.

As the convener said, my questions are about restrictions on the use and supply of fireworks. The bill introduces various restrictions on the days and times when fireworks can be sold and used. The committee has had some concerns about that and we are looking for a wee bit more information that might alleviate those concerns. Are the witnesses content with the proposed restrictions? Do they strike an appropriate balance between allowing people to enjoy fireworks and reducing their misuse?

I am glad to hear that. However, if the Parliament picks certain dates, might that open up the bill to criticism relating to other religious festivals or dates that might become important in the future? That is what the committee is grappling with. The more that I speak to witnesses on the issue, the more content I am becoming with the provision in the bill, because it seems to have widespread support from stakeholders. However, the committee is grappling with the question of whether it is best not to have any dates at all, and not to go into that minefield of picking the most important dates, because the relevant dates will be different for different people.

Alternatively, as I asked in my previous question, do we need more flexibility for local authorities so that they can judge local need? I know that I have already asked that, but I just wanted to set out where I am coming from with my questions, and where I think other committee members are coming from. Convener, I am well aware of the time and that that was more of a point than a question, so I am happy to pass back to you.

That is one of the key benefits. I fully understand why certain days have been put in the bill. Not only will it allow emergency services to prepare but, as we heard quite articulately from the previous panel of witnesses, it will allow pet owners, for example, to prepare not to be in the area or to seek alternatives; medication and suchlike were mentioned.

My worry, which I know that other members share, is that, by specifying dates, you go into an arena of not specifying other dates such as other religious festivals or other events that might be important to people. I want to work out whether there is any way in which we can improve that aspect of the bill or ensure that it is not open to some sort of challenge in the future—that is our job.

Rob, have you got any thoughts on the specified dates? How would that aspect impact on the people that you work with?

Good morning. I am afraid that I, too, have been damp squibbed—if there is such a term—by Jamie Greene, but I will pick up on the line of questioning about the dates that have been specified. I have some concerns that, as other members have said, those could be open to challenge. I would like to be reassured that there is not something more that we could do to help with the intent of that bit of the bill as we move through the legislative process.

I know that local authorities are able to have organised displays and the like, but do you think that there is an argument for them to have more power to set specific dates for their area? All three of the previous speakers have asked about this issue. There are other religious events during the year, and there are also one-off events that might be important to people. Do you have any thoughts on whether local authorities could have an application scheme, for example?

No, I am happy with that, convener. The previous questioners covered the main thrust of what I was going to ask about.